strunk aff response to 4-11-12 decision and osc nyssc index 6500-2011

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS IAS Part 27 Index No.: 6500-201 1 ..................................................................... x

Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse (Hon. Arthur M. Schack J S C )

Plaintiff, -against- PLAINTIFF'S

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ C O L ~ N , in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 11, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY O F NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY, STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AIMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND, MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALN VICTORY 2008; J o h n and J a n e Does; and XYZ Entities.

AFFIDAVIT IN

RESPONSETOTHE

ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY

SANCTIONS AND

COURT COSTS

SHOULDNOTBE

LEVIED RATHER

THANSETTLE

Defendants.

u STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss. COUNTY OF KINGS 1

Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk i n esse, being duly sworn, depose and say

under penalty of perjury:

b

5 !g 5 0 23

',Z-JX cpF' 7.3 ,- n ---4O Om' '

0 V) m

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC of 27

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011

1. I am, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, by special appearance am self-

represented without an attorney, respond to the Decision dismissing the complaint

filed March 22, 2011 by the Decision and Order by Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. entered

on April 12, 2012 and that Plaintiff appear on May 7, 2012 to show cause why he

should not be sanctioned and levied defendants’ costs for litigation; and therein

unreasonably alleging Plaintiff case filing and appearance on August 22, 2011 is as if

frivolous conduct, alleges issue preclusion by collateral estoppel and as if a prior

decision existed barred by res judicata ( )1 ; and notwithstanding such, further alleged

plaintiff lacks standing and suffers no particular injury different than general anyway.

2. In the matter of alleged collateral estoppel, such charge do not apply herein as

it has limited applicability in cases where the issues raised in the prior court where

the action:

a. was on a pro se informa pauperus petition denied only to the extent to dismiss

the application sua sponte as the issues were never heard, and were beyond its

jurisdiction as the case before USDC EDNY Judge Ross was filed without a

proper application and left without leave to amend or cure in the first place;

b. then in State Court by failure to perfect service as in the case before Judge

Schmidt in the case Index no.: 29642-2008 remains active without parties

joined until ordered consolidated with this case that as of right based upon the

decision in the Article 78 case 29641-08 Plaintiff was entitled to cure the

complaint by amendment based upon the constitutionality finding as the

1 Res judicata will be applied to a pending lawsuit if several facts can be established by the party asserting the res judicata defense. First, the party must show that a final judgment on the merits of the case had been entered by a court having jurisdiction over the matter. This means that a final decision in the first lawsuit was based on the factual and legal disputes between the parties rather than a procedural defect, such as the failure to serve the defendant with legal process.

Strunk’s Response to the Decision with OSC of 27


controlling law of the case, and subject to discovery in Strunk’s Washington DC

ongoing FOIA case;

c. then as for the original proceeding in Second Circuit, Petitioner merely sought

discovery of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama’s travel records wherein the Circuit

Judge declined to sign an order for release of documents, and then

d. as a result thereafter Strunk sought discovery with a FOIA request still ongoing

FOIA Case Strunk v US DOS and US DHS USDC DC 08-cv-2234 (RJL) with a

decision on Plaintiff’s demand for release of Stanley Ann Obama’s travel records

between August 1, 1961 and August 10, 1961 also sought in a criminal

investigation of the present actions to spoliate and conceal by Defendant

Obama in his official capacity is pending, and in which action constitutes a bar

of Barack Hussein Obama’s motion to dismiss herein under unclean hands

doctrine that bars certain equitable defenses that would seek dismissal.

3. The Verified Complaint filed on March 22, 2011, with the exception of the New

York State Board of Elections and the named chairmen and Commissioners as public

officers and the conflict of interest of present and past of members of the New York

City Campaign Finance Board acting ultra vires, was filed against private persons not

in their capacity as public officers per se in that notwithstanding any particular public

office that any such private person may hold the nature of the ultra vires breach of

public interest and trust, conspiracy, civil fraud with unjust enrichment renders each

personally liable.

DEFENDANT STATE’s REJECTION OF TENDER OFFER TO SETTLE

4. That the New York State Board of Election principal officers on February 28,

2012 on the recorded video at a public meeting admit to the use of the term “Born a

Citizen” associated with the 14th amendment citizenship status rather than the term of



art “natural-born Citizen” required by Congress, the State Legislature and the U.S.

Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 as an ongoing instruction to any person

that seeks ballot access at the 2012 Presidential Election cycle in New York; and is a

furtherance by the principal officers prior actions of the use of “Born a Citizen” in the

2008 election cycle as the subject of breach of fiduciary duty and facilitation of

conspiracy, fraud, and acted to spoliate and conceal evidence from Plaintiff, with

felonies now proven, that on October 25, 2011 were ignored by the Court in the

presence of New York State Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Joel Graber and five of

Defendants’ attorneys in appearance. Use of “Born a Citizen” shifts the burden of duty.

5. That before the appearance on October 25, 2011 in the courtroom, in order to

settle the case except for expense incurred, Plaintiff tendered a settlement offer to Joel

Graber AAG regarding his clients the State, in the presence of five defendant attorneys

in appearance, that were the State to change the instruction “Born a Citizen” to the

required term of art “Natural-born Citizen” Plaintiff would settle, and to the

amazement of Defendants’ attorneys the State rejected the offer of settlement and

thereby bound Plaintiff to continue litigation accordingly;

6. The State’s rejection of a settlement resulted in Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal on

the interlocutory decision to decline to sign Plaintiff’s application for Order to show

cause to mandate a change in instruction ‘Born a Citizen “ to “Natural-born Citizen” at

the October 25, 2011 hearing as the necessary evidence and transactions to

supplement the complaint as to the culpability of the action of the State and principal

officers having been unreasonable denied leave to supplement in open Court, and then

the Court over the objection of Plaintiff granted an open ended extension of time for

the State to avoid any response to the Complaint duly served upon it and its officers.



7. That Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on the interlocutory decision to decline the

“Born a Citizen” matter at the October 25, 2011 hearing was dismissed sua sponte by

the 2nd Department Appellate division as pre-mature and denied the right of appeal;

and furthermore, on February 9, 2012 was followed by Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion to

this Court for leave to have the constitutional issue associated with “Born a Citizen”

reviewed by the New York State Court of Appeals with CPLR §5601 (b)(2) then

adjourned sua sponte twice until June 18, 2012 along with Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion

for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint

filed April 12, along with the proposed First Supplement to the Complaint.

STRUNK DULY FIRED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA GIVES STANDING WITH INJURY

8. Despite the transcript account of the ipse dixit activities of Arthur M. Schack at

the motion hearing of August 22, 2011, the Court properly recognizes that Plaintiff

had duly fired Barack Hussein Obama within 72 hours of his dual offer of contract by

oath on January 20 & 21, 2009; and as such, Plaintiff is the only person in the

country to have done such firing and suffers a specific particular personal injury as a

result different than any other person in the USA in that Defendant Barack Hussein

Obama Soebarkah personally has injured Plaintiff; and that as a private person

Strunk’s transaction with Soebarkah by proper notice is a simple contract matter,

and as such Barack Hussein Obama’s disregard of Strunk’s notice bar him from

action and underlies the basis of individual action by Plaintiff with this Complaint.

DEFENDANT McCAIN HAS UNCLEAN HANDS

9. That the cause of action involving conspiracy in the scheme to defraud with

breach of contract against John S. McCain (the unindicted co-conspirator of “the

Keating Five” who collaborated with Archbishop Paul Marcinkus of the Vatican Bank]

is that he misrepresented that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone giving Plaintiff



sufficient cause and reliance on such misrepresentation as a contract with Plaintiff to

cast his vote as intangible property in favor of McCain in the General Election in

November 2008, and is further supported by the fact that McCain had full knowledge

by the Senate sense resolution 511 of April 2008 sponsored by then Senator Obama,

that to be “natural-born citizen” requires U.S. Citizen parents at birth, and that

Defendant McCain knew that Barack Hussein Obama did not have U.S. Citizen

parents at birth alleged in Hawaii, because his father was a British Subject on a

foreign alien student visa as admitted by Barack Hussein Obama Jr. in his campaign

speeches and autobiography admits against interest “My father was a foreign student

born and raised in Kenya he grew up herding goats! “

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6jrrnkKmUzo.

DEFENDANT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS UNCLEAN HANDS

AND MADE ADMISSIONS AGAINST INTEREST

10. That Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah has unclean hands by his and his

agents acts of careless disregard of his duty to Plaintiff, with acts of spoliation,

concealment, misrepresentation and sufficient evidence of crimes of forgery and use

of false instruments as shown by the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff’s Department

COLD CASE POSSE on going criminal investigation with their release of findings

presented as judicial notice for a supplement to the complaint on April 12, 2012, and

that Defendant and his agents have made admissions against interest as to his

involvement in a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff in furtherance of the usurpation of the

office of POTUS for the purpose of unjust enrichment of he and his associates in

furtherance of the promotion of the financial stability of the European Union Fourth


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6jrrnkKmUzo


Reich ( )2 with the transfer of no less than $16 trillion of taxpayer obligations and

unconstitutional use of out of area NATO forces and US Military assets and forces in

the overthrow of several nations in service of formation of the Mediterranean Union

and the European Union control over African resources / assets and includes RCC

rebuilding of the third temple as part of the New Babylon and New Testament plan.

THE CONTROLLING ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS THAT DEFENDANT OBAMA

KNEW HE IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN WITH MULTIPLE ALLEGIANCE

11. That Plaintiff in the Complaint filed March 22, 2011 never questioned the place

of birth of Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah as purported in the April 25, 2011 Long

Form Birth Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) merely asserted the fact admitted to by all

parties that Barack Hussein Obama’s father married to Stanley Ann Obama was a

British Subject on a foreign alien student visa in itself precluding a path to citizenship

and therefore Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not a “Natural-born Citizen” at best “Born

a Citizen” as defined by the 14th Amendment – the birthplace in the Complaint is not

at issue the issue is dual allegiance and perhaps triple allegiance when combined with

the Soebarkah Indonesian allegiance!

2 First Reich 963 AD through 1806 AD (RCC) is the common contemporary Latin legal term used in documents of the Holy Roman Empire was for a long time regnum ("rule, domain, empire", such as in Regnum Francorum for the Frankish Kingdom) before imperium was in fact adopted, the latter first attested in 1157, whereas the parallel use of regnum never fell out of use during the Middle Ages.

Second Reich 1806 AD through 1918 AD (Protestant) after the defeat of Napoleon lead to Bismarch’s Protestant German Austrian Hungarian Empire.

Third Reich 1918 AD through 1945 AD (RCC)

Fourth Reich 1945 AD through Present (RCC) the European Union.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francia


12. The Court’s willful disregard of both history and facts herein is outrageous, and

as such requires Plaintiff recite the history of what dual allegiance associated with the

de facto “Born a Citizen” versus the single allegiance of the de jure “Natural-born

Citizen” means as is controlling subject before this court that must be resolved as a

matter of provision of substantive due process herein to afford equal protection to

Plaintiff, and as for the de facto “born a citizen” of the 14th amendment and the

“anchor baby” without full and complete allegiance is contrary to the U.S.

Constitution and New York State Constitution too, goes to State Defendant breach of

fiduciary duty and shift of strict burden of responsibility for their arbitrary acts.

13. In the matter of what does “Born a Citizen” in relation to the questionable term

“Anchor Baby” mean in regards to who is to be considered an inhabitant for the

purpose of seeking office of the POTUS according to the U.S. Constitution Article 2

Section 1 Paragraphs 5 is germane herein before this court. The truth about the 14th

amendment has been out there for so long but no one seems to care what the framers

said, and the facts are 100% ignored WE do not need the courts to figure out what a

naturalized and natural-born Citizen (NBC) means as used in NYS Real Property Law

§18 or do we need Congress to do an investigation because the truth is already

available all we need to do is look at the facts. No amendment to the term exists.

14. For the record: the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was adopted on

December 6, 1865; The Civil Rights Act of 1866 which granted former slaves

citizenship was enacted April 9 1866; and, the 14th amendment which made the Civil

Rights Act constitutional was proposed on June 13, 1866 and after much debate, as

adopted on July 9, 1868.

15. So the question then raised were all dealt with, during the same time frame,

with the same Congressman involved, in each bill. The 14th amendment represented



the overruling of the Dred Scott decision ruling that black people former slaves were

not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges

and immunities of citizenship.

16. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons

born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign

power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the

Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to

be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to

prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. Which means the

Civil Rights Act of 1866 still stands because the 14th amendment was never repealed.

17. The left/progressives, associates and Defendants’ agents with propagandists

including Justia.org and Findlaw.org have willfully totally perverted the 14th

Amendment with their Birthright Citizenship lie. Therefore, to truly understand the

14th Amendment and what the framers original intent was when writing it, you must

go back to the framers writings and the congressional debates.

18. Obviously the logical people to research in regard to debates would be Senator

Lyman Trumbull who was the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Co-author of

the 14th Amendment’s “citizenship clause” and co-author of the 13th Amendment to

abolish slavery – was an Illinois Supreme Court Justice 1848-1853.

19. Senator Jacob Howard worked with Lincoln to draft the 13th amendment.

Served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the 14th Amendment

to the United States Constitution, and was co-author of the 14th Amendment’s

“Citizenship Clause”.

20. The Honorable John Bingham was the principle Framer of the 14th Amendment,

Judge advocate in the Lincoln assassination trial and prosecutor on the impeachment



of Andrew Johnson. So getting to the facts, and the easiest way is established by the

chronological order of the legislative debate presentation starting with Representative

John Bingham in 1862 recorded in the Congressional Globe of the 37th Congress 2nd

session page 1639 stated:

“There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and the compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born Within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exceptions to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relation to Indians...”

21. The next would be the Civil Rights Act of 1866; the original bill was introduced

on January 5, 1866 according to the 39th Congress 1st session Senate 62, that was

reported out of Committee on January 11, 1866 “A BILL to protect all persons in the

United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication.” And it

read:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory “

A week later there was an amendment offered by Mr. Trumbull to wit:

“In section 1, line 3, after the word ‘That,’ insert, ‘that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States with distinction of color; and,’ ”

22. On the question to agree to the amendment proposed by Mr. Trumbull, It was

determined in the affirmative, Yeas 31 Nays 10. The Bill as an Act went over to the

House of Representatives where it passed, along with Howard and Trumbull’s

amendment. John Bingham, speaks on the amendment to the bill :

” I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory or what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign



sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen;”

23. The bill was then sent, to President Andrew Johnson and Johnson vetoed it. It

was sent back to Congress, where both houses, passed the bill, overriding the

President’s veto.

24. Next Chronologically on to the 14th Amendment, as the congressional debates

while they were debating the 14th Amendment as with that for the Civil Rights act will

reveal how the present use has been 100% perverted. The Bill as proposed for the 14th

amendment at first did not provide for a jurisdictional statement in Article 1 Section 1

quote:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities if citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

During the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883 Mr. Latham stated quote:

“Mr. Speaker, we seem to have fallen upon an age of theories. We are told from day to day with much seeming sincerity and an air of the most profound political sagacity that the Union when restored must be restored upon the basis which will make it as permanent as the everlasting hills and as invulnerable as the throne of the Eternal, and with such safeguards that even treason will no longer be possible within its jurisdiction.”

25. Then Senator Edgar Cowen gave a speech telling why the citizenship clause was

need and certainly was not to be used to make anyone born here a citizen, stated …

“Mr. Cowen. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of “citizenship of the United States.” What does it mean? What is its length and breath? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese Immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I



apprehend. He has a right to the protections of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word.”

“It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to be an elector. ..”

And he goes further to state:

“I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point.

“As I understand the right of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the United States…

“I think the Honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that the Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power of the State, and wield it, perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not believe anybody would agree to that.”

26. Now who among the framers of the 14th Amendment had no clue or inclination

on the issue of illegal immigration and inclusion of anchor babies? Howard and

Trumbull argued for the inclusion of the term “and subject to the jurisdiction” would

be applied and agreed that there would not be a new definition of the term jurisdiction

to be interpreted and applied in the proposed amendment to be declaratory of the



current law, the Civil Rights Act, and that as such Mr. Howard said of the “citizenship

clause” quote:

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and …”

27. What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the

14th Amendment? Mr. Lyman Trumbull in 1866, Chairman of the Judiciary

Committee and author of 13th Amendment, in the Congressional Globe 2893 said

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ Now does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.?’ Not owing allegiance of anybody else. That is what it means.”

28. In response Senator Jacob Howard responds in concurrence:

“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction. That question has long since been adjudicated, so far as the usage of the Government is concerned…”

29. The Supreme Court of the United State (SCOTUS) in Minor v Happersett states

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. As distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their (p168) parents. As to



this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have not to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizen” (Emphasis added)

30. The SCOTUS Case Respublica v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. 111

“M’Kean, Chief Justice. This is a case of the first impression in the United States. It must be determined on the principles of the laws of nations, which form a part of the municipal law of Pennsylvania; and , if the offenses charged in the indictment have been committed, there can be no doubt, that those laws have been violated.”

The Chief Justice goes on to say:

“Therefore, we conclude, that the Defendant cannot be imprisoned, until his most Christian Majesty shall declare, that the reparation is satisfactory ‘3. ‘The answer to the last question is rendered unnecessary by the above answer to the second question.’ The foregoing answers having been given, it only remains for the Court to pronounce sentence upon you. This sentence must be governed by a due consideration of the enormity and dangerous tendency of the offences you have committed, of the willfulness, deliberation, and malice, wherewith they were done, of the quality and degree of the offended and offender, the provocation given, and all other circumstances which may anyway aggravate or extenuate the guilt. The first crime in the indictment is an infraction of the law of Nations. This law, in its full extent, is part of the law of this State, and is to be collected from the practice of different Nations, and the authority of writers. “

31. Further search will verify that the term Law of Nations is mentioned at

least a dozen times on the page and the author Vattel is sighted along with each and

no other authorities related to law of nations is cited – only that of Vattel.

32. That in the SCOTUS case The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Mr. Chief

Justice Marshal stated

“Vattel who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantage. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. “



33. As is to be found in The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by

Emer de Vattel Joseph Chitty at Section 212. reads:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to it authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed as matter of course, that each citizen , on entering into society, reserve to children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

34. That the question posed is why do the usurper’s propagandists use the decision

in regards to Wong Kim Ark where the law went astray? They are pulled towards

corruption in that nearly 100 years earlier then usurper Chester Arthur (F F)3 appointed

Justice Gray to chief justice to succeed Oliver Wendell Holms, Jr. and Gray had

sabotaged his later ruling in Wong Kim Ark from that held in Minor v Happersett of

1874. That in Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884) Argued April 28, 1884 and Decided

November 3, 1884 it seems that Justice Horace Gray knew the law in 1884 but by the

time Wong Kim Ark came along 15 years later he had forgotten it! Quoting Justice

Gray from the SCOTUS Elk v. Wilkins:

“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President.’

And “The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II Section 1; Article 1, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v Sanford,

3 Chester Arthur was born in Fairfield Vermont in 1829, but looking at his father’s naturalization papers he didn’t become a citizen until August 31, 1843 meaning that Chester Arthur was not born to citizen parents therefore was not a natural-born Citizen. It seems that the people challenging Chester Arthur then were right all along.



19 Howard 393) , and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white of black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83 US 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306.

35. In the matter of the immigrant taking the Oath to be a citizen of the United

States of America:

“I hereby declare, an oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentiate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United states of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same , that I will bears arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, that I perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United states when required by the law that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion so help me God.”

36. Immigrants becoming citizens must take an oath of sole allegiance to the USA.

Now why would that not be expected also of citizens born here? If you are born to two

citizens parents, your allegiance is passed down. If you are not born to two citizen

parents, you must take the oath, simple as that! Vattel’s authority as an institutional

writer extended to the USA where he was cited in court cases between 1789 and 1820

no less than 92 times on matters pertaining to the law of nations.

PLAINTIFF SINGLED OUT BY COURT

37. Plaintiff strenuously objects to Justice Schack’s use of the Jesuit’s Social

Justice Antonio Gramsci / Palmira Togliatti model to marginalize and debase Plaintiff

as if an opponent with disparagement tactics glommed from Luciferian Saul Alinsky

to single Plaintiff out as if part of a special class called “Birther” to be considered out

of kin, and subject to special treatment for speech and thoughts that do not adhere to

the socially accepted norms of political correctness by a so-called collective majority.

38. That the Court’s ipse dixit probing and gratuitous bias shown in the transcript

from August 22, 2011 appears an attempt to obscure and obfuscate the content of the



Complaint per se, such as quote “If the complaint in this action was a movie script, it

would be entitled The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da Vinci Code.” along with the

pure invention of a characterization of “Natural Born Citizen” that both cherry picks

and skews history and actual meaning for the willful purpose to debase and belittle

Plaintiff and his sworn statements on which this case is based - is in itself

sanctionable action for disregard of justice administered without favor that infringes

Strunk’s 9th Amendment( ) 4 rights and liberty both in his private person and public

citizen self apart from a supposed majority or collective. The Court strays beyond the

guidelines of acceptable norms of prescribed belief and practice that disparages and

defame Plaintiff along with those similarly situated individuals otherwise protected by

the Bill of Rights that with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution require that

no State act to single out a person for special treatment as if part of a pseudo class

based upon outrageously absurd characterizations, and despite Plaintiffs objection

4 U.S. Constitution 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Some jurists have asserted that the Ninth Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):

“The Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement. In sum, the Ninth Amendment simply lends strong support to the view that the "liberty" protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from infringement by the Federal Government or the States is not restricted to rights specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. Cf. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94-95.”


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Goldberg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan,_Jr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut


that somehow Plaintiff had been swayed by popular movies rather than facts and

historical evidence of Defendants acts as the reason for filing the Complaint.

39. In the Complaint the term “natural citizen” was never used, instead uses

“natural born” 25 times in the Complaint appears with “citizen” or “citizenship” and at

no time in the Complaint had Plaintiff separated the use of the words “natural born”

from the term of art “natural born citizen”; and thus shows how Justice Schack’s

arbitrary and capricious decision is shaped to debase and color Plaintiff.

40. As further evidence of the Court’s bias, Judge Schack proceeds to further

debase and dehumanize Plaintiff as self-represented and that infers that Plaintiff is a

kook bigoted incoherent frivolous litigant that somehow is primarily motivated by his

biase against Catholics and Islam as a pure invention on Justice Schack’s part rather

than the truth, law and justice. The Court even mocks Strunk in the August 22, 2011

transcript when Plaintiff infers while attaining the highest rank of Eagle Scout can

only support 10 of the Boy Scout laws not 12 (no longer “obedient” and “reverent”) as

to the injury sustained against him by Defendants’ acts.

41. As a matter of record Plaintiff’s use of the term “Catholic” appears 13 times in

the Complaint as the only way to clarify Defendants association and intent: first

appears at Paragraph 49 as the stated religion of McCain’s wife and children; at

Paragraph 75 in reference to published religious reference to Fr. O’Hare and Justice

Sonia Sotomayor who served together on the NYC agency to disburse taxpayer funds,

and at the footnote (1) in reference to strategy of putting Catholics on SCOTUS; at

Paragraph 76 in reference to Fr. O’Hare intent of support for BHO; Paragraph 106 as a

quote of expert Count Vittorio Vivaldi III of Venice Italy in reference to the 632 AD

writing of the Koran; at Paragraph 109 in footnote reference to Knight of Malta Peter

G. Peterson as to the SMOM program; at Paragraph 117 in reference to published



educational background of Zbigniew Brzezinski; at Paragraph 144 footnote reference

to George Soros and the Vatican Bank landing bank JP Morgan for BHO foreign funds.

ROME HIJACKED USE OF THE GREEK TERM CATHOLIC

42. Affirmant reads the works of Plato and characterizes himself as a “liberal

catholic” by practice and belief, contrary to the hijacking of the term by Rome, in that

the word catholic (derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective, meaning

"universal") comes from the Greek phrase, meaning "on the whole", "according to the

whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words meaning "about" and

meaning "whole". The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of

things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith" as "relating to the historic

doctrine and practice of the Western Church." ; and for the record the word “Catholic”

was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize

its universal scope. In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and

several usages. In non-ecclesiastical use, it derives its English meaning directly from

its root, and is currently used to mean the following: (i) universal or of general interest;

(ii) liberal, having broad interests, or wide sympathies; or (iii) inclusive, inviting and

containing strong evangelism; and as for Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is the

belief in liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their

understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as

constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism,

religious free exercise…

43. The fact is that Plaintiff is not a Christian or religious of any description nor

does he even believe that the supposed person “Jesus” even existed in that the name

would have been “Joshua” instead and that otherwise as a Hebrew would not even

have been permitted a Bar Mitzvah with such barbarian name “Jesus” is ridiculous;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election#Difficulties_with_elections

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion


and moreover, Plaintiff believes that after the destruction of the second Temple in 70

AD by Titus and Roman in the so-called First Jewish War that Judaism per se ended

as an active religion and with the banishment of the Hebrews from their Temple and

from Judea renamed Acre with the Second Jewish War as prosecuted by Emperor

Hadrian Judaism as reduced eliminated the Pharisees and started the Rabbinical

tradition that was then after 70 AD integrated along with the Five (5) Books of Moses

by the New Testament written starting with Gospel of Mark by someone with the pen-

name Josephus and with agreement with those Pharisees in the Diaspora and mosaic

would await rebuilding the Third Temple resolution as is ongoing now with Defendants

use of the USA government establishment of USA state religion with the Oslo Accords.

CHRISTIANITY AND THE NEW TESTAMENT A CREATION OF ROME

44. That based upon information and belief "The New Testament” the Church, and

Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso family, who were Roman

aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it--Jesus, all the Josephs, all

the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and John the Baptist--are all fictional, and

that the Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story into a specific

time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people,

such as the Herods, Gamaliel ( )5 , the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone

involved with him were created (that is, fictional!) characters.

5 The Fr. Gregory Galluzzo S.J. Ford Foundation funded Gamaliel community organization and mentor to Defendant Obama, in addition to Frank Marshal Davis, whose organization is the namesake of the RCC that canonized Saint Gamaliel the Elder, or Rabban Gamaliel I, who was a leading authority in the Sanhedrin in the mid 1st century CE. He was son of Simeon ben Hillel, and grandson of the great Jewish teacher Hillel the Elder, and died twenty years before the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE). He fathered a son, whom he called Simeon, after his father,[2] and a daughter, whose daughter (i.e., Gamaliel's granddaughter) married a priest named Simon ben Nathanael. The name Gamaliel is the Greek form of the Hebrew name meaning reward of God; that in the Christian tradition, Gamaliel is celebrated as a Pharisee doctor of Jewish Law. Acts of the Apostles speaks of Gamaliel as a man of great


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_ben_Hillel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_ben_Hillel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish-Roman_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimon_ben_Gamliel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel#cite_note-JE-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles


45. Further, that in the middle of the first century of our present era, Rome's

aristocracy felt itself confronted with a growing problem. The Jewish religion was

continuing to grow in numbers, adding ever more proselytes. Jews numbered more

than 8,000,000, and were 10% of the population of the empire and 20% of that portion

living east of Rome. ( )6 Approximately half or more of the Jews lived outside Palestine,

of which many were descended from proselytes, male and female." (7) However,

Judaism's ethics and morality were incompatible with the hallowed Roman institution

of slavery on which the aristocracy fed, lived and ruled. They feared that Judaism

would become the chief religion of the empire. The Roman author, Annaeus Seneca,

tutor and confidant of Emperor Nero, suggested in a letter to his friend Lucilius (a

pseudonym of Lucius Piso) that lighting candles on Sabbaths be prohibited. ( )8 Seneca

is later quoted by St. Augustine in his City of God ( )9 (although the quotation does not

exist in Seneca's extant writings) as charging that: "the (Sabbath) customs of that

most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in

all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conqueror.""

46. Further, that the family headed by Seneca's friend, Lucius Piso, was confronted

with an allied problem more personal to it. They were the Calpurnius Pisos, who were

descended from statesmen and consuls, and from great poets and historians as well.

Gaius and Lucius Calpurnius Piso, leaders of the family, had both married Arria the

Younger (from her grandfather's name, Aristobulus). This made Gaius and Lucius

Piso's wife the great-granddaughter of Herod the Great.

respect who spoke in favor of arrested Christian apostles and the Jewish Law teacher of Paul the Apostle. 6 Klausner, Joseph, From Jesus to Paul, Macmillan Co., 1943, pp 33-34. 7 Baron, Salo, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, Columbia Univ. Press, N.Y., and Jewish Publication Society, Philidephia, 1952, vol. 1, pp 170-171. 8 Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Vol. III, Epistle XCV.47, pp 87-89. 9 St. Augustine, City of God, Modern Library, Random House, 1950, 6.11, p 202.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle


47. Further, as motivation in this charade, repeatedly, religious-minded Judaean

zealots were staging insurrections against the Herodian rulers of Judaea who were

Piso's wife's relations. Piso wished to strengthen his wife's family's control of the

Judaeans. The Pisos searched for a solution to the two problems. They found it in the

Jewish holy books, which were the foundation both for the rapid spread of the religion

and for the zealot's refusal to be governed by Rome's puppets. The Pisos mocked, but

marveled at, the Jewish belief in their holy books. Therefore, they felt a new "Jewish"

book would be the ideal method to pacify the Judaeans and strengthen their in-laws'

control of the country.

48. Further, that about the year, 60 A.D. (C.E.), Lucius Calpurnius Piso composed

Ur Marcus, the first version of the Gospel of Mark, which no longer exists. He was

encouraged by his friend Seneca (10) and assisted by his wife's kinsman, young Persius

the Poet. Nero's mistress (later his wife) Poppea was pro-Jewish, and Nero opposed the

plan. The result was the Pisonian conspiracy to assassinate Nero, detailed in the

historian Tacitus. But this attempt failed when he aborted the plot. Instead, Nero had

Piso and Seneca and their fellow conspirators executed by forcing them to commit

suicide; and that he exiled Piso's young son Arrius (spelled "Arius" herein), who

appears in Tacitus under several names, including "Antonius Natalis." (11) Nero sent

young Piso to Syria as governor. That post also gave him command of the legions

controlling Judaea. His own "history" records his service in Judaea in the year 65

under the name of Gessius Florus, and in 66 with the pseudonym Cestius Gallus.

10 Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Vol. I, Epistle XLVI, pp 299-300. 11 Tacitus, Annals, XV.54,71



49. Further, that this Arius Calpurnius Piso deliberately provoked the Jewish

revolt in 66 so he could destroy the Temple in Jerusalem ( )12 --for the Jews were

unwilling to accept his father's story and thereby become pacified by it as it was

intended. However, his 12th legion was caught by the zealots in the Pass of Beth

Horon and almost lost. Nero's reaction was to exile him instead to Pannonia, to

command a legion there; and to send Licinius Mucianus to serve in Syria, and

Vespasian to Judaea to put down the Jewish revolt.

50. Then in 68 Nero was assassinated by his own slave Epaphroditus ( )13 --who

unknown to his master was young Piso's lackey. Galba became emperor and named

Piso's cousin, Licinianus Piso, ( )14 as his intended successor; but Galba in turn was

soon overthrown by Otho. Otho was then overthrown by Vitellius-at which point Piso

and his friends began to flock together against the latter. The Pisos, Mucianus, and

Tiberius Alexander all joined ranks behind Vespasian to seek to overthrow Vitellius. ( )15

The were joined by Frontinus and Agricola.; and that Arius Calpurnius Piso was still

commanding the 7th legion in Pannonia ( )16 (Austria-Hungary), and Vespasian sent

him ( ) 17 (now appearing in Tacitus with the name Marcus Antonius Primus (18)) south

12 Having destroyed the Temple, Piso could then have Jesus (whom he was predating to 40 years before the Temple's destruction) prophecy the destruction because of the Jews' rejection of him! (Mat. 23.37-38). 13 Roman historians (Suet. Nero 49, and Dio Cassius 63.29) explain merely that Epaphroditus assisted the emperor's suicide. See also Tacitus, Annals XV.55, footnote 2. 14 Tacitus, Histories I.14. 15 Tacitus, Histories II.74-81. 16 Tacitus, Histories III.2, footnote 1. 17 (Tacitus) Vespasian relied on Piso because he was grandson of his own brother--Vespasian's brother, T. Flavius Sabinus, had married Arria Sr., who was Piso's maternal grandmother. Piso's identity as thus also a Flavian is decipherable from the appearance in the Flavian family line of L. Caesennius Paetus (Townend, Gavin, Some Flavian Connections, Journal of Roman Studies LI.54,62, 1961). That was an alias (like Thrasea Paetus) of Piso's father, L. Calpurnius Piso. See page 20 supra, wherein Piso himself also is mentioned as a Caesennius Paetus. That is the true reason Piso used the literary pseudonym of Flavius; it was not because of his alleged-but untrue and hardly necessary-adoption by Emperor Flavius Vespasian. He was in fact a Flavian.



across the Alps to overthrow Vitellius. Meanwhile, the main body of Vespasian's

legions marched overland under Mucianus from the east towards Rome. Piso

succeeded in defeating Vitellius' army and secured Rome for Vespasian.( )19 Mucianus

arrived and promptly sent him to Judaea to help Titus at the siege of Jerusalem. He

did so, and in 70 they assaulted the city, then the Temple, burned it, slaughtered

many thousands, sent thousands more to slavery and gladiatorial combat and death.

51. Then it was at this point that Arius Calpurnius Piso wrote, in sequence, the

following: Gospel of Matthew (70-75 C.E.) Present Gospel of Mark (75-80 C.E.) Gospel

of Luke (85-90 C.E., with help of Pliny the Younger) in the gospel story he inserted

himself by playing the role of not only Jesus, but of all the Josephs, as well. He

particularly enjoyed assuming the identity of Joseph. Wishing to create a Jewish hero,

a savior, in fictional form, he (and his father before him), felt the identity of a second

Joseph secretly, but very aptly, fit them. For their name Piso had the same four

letters, rearranged, as the four Hebrew letters (Yud Vov Samech Fey) which in that

18 (Tacitus, Histories III.6). The realization that Marcus Antonius Primus was a pseudonym of Arius Calpurnius Piso is based on these factors: 1. The name in Pliny's letters under which Piso is the latter's wife's grandfather is Arius Antoninus. 2. According to Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, Book IV. XXV), Emperor Caius Caligula appropriated Gaius Piso's wife at Piso's marriage. That would have been about the year 36--the year before Arius' birth. Caligula is known to have been a descendant of Mark Antony (Marcus Antonius). Seemingly Suetonius was teasing at the questioned paternity of Piso's alter ego creation. 3. Tacitus' caustic description of Marcus Antonius Primus remind one of Piso. 4. The idea to call Piso "Antonius Primus" --was his own. It was Piso himself in his Jewish War IV.495 who first detailed Antonius Primus' campaign for Vespasian against Vitellius. Also Josephus inserts "Antonius" (himself!) as a centurion who dies at the capture of Jotapata (Jewish War III.333). 5. Marcus Antonius Primus' colleague in the campaign against Vitellius is named Arrius Varus (Tacitus, Histories III.6). This is yet another alter ego of Piso himself. In the mid-50's (C.E.), while in his late teens, young Piso was a prefect of a cohort of legionnaires in the campaign against Vologeses, King of Armenia--serving there (in Tacitus, Annals XIII.9) under the name of Arrius Varus. 6. His exploits as General Marcus Antonius Primus account for his absence from Judaea in the years 67-69, between his defeat as Cestius Gallus and his reappearing to assist Titus as the siege of Jerusalem in 70. Rather than being Vespasian's prisoner in chains, he was his general, advancing on Rome in his behalf. 19 The same device of rearranging consonants was used in recreating Afranius Burrus, the friend of Seneca (Tacitus, Annals XIII-XIV)-and therefore of Lucius Piso. He was Nero's Praetorian Prefect, and then several years before Seneca's death, was himself a victim of the emperor. Burrus reappears as BaRaBbaS, the fictional brigand in Mat. 27.16.



language spelled the name Joseph. Thus they saw themselves as the new Joseph. That

is why so much of the story of Joseph in Egypt is secretly redone and inserted into the

gospel story of Jesus. This is insight into the Inquisition and role of Jesuit Militia too.

JUSTICE ADMINISTERED WITHOUT FAVOR AND SPEEDILY

52. That the Court’s April 11, 2012 decision was issued with intentional delay and

disparagement of Plaintiff personally eight (8) months after the August 22, 2011

hearing on various motions to dismiss therein granted, and with Plaintiff’s motion to

consolidate denied, shows Justice Schack’s biased intent to delay and deny speedy

justice to all Parties and especially violates Plaintiff fundamental NYS Civil Rights

Chapter 6 Article 2 “Bill of Rights” §10. fundamental right to quote:

“ Justice to be administered without favor and speedily. Neither justice nor right should be sold to any person, nor denied, nor deferred; and writs and process ought to be granted freely and without delay, to all persons requiring the same, on payment of the fees established by law.”

53. That Plaintiff sought justice administered without favor and speedily to prevent

delay as time is still of the essence with imminent ongoing irreparable harm now

further injuring Plaintiff along with those similarly situated when after more than 60

days Plaintiff forced an appearance at the OSC preliminary hearing of October 25,

2011, whereupon at the public hearing forced off the record by the Court despite

appearance of counsels for parties there speaking and being granted relief by the

Court even though Justice Schack ardently refused to allow any transcript record of

germane testimony from Marshal Bell for the Brzezinski family, the State or Plaintiff

among others present; and then outrageously granted Joel Graber of the Attorney

General Office representing the NYS Board of Elections and its officers of the State an

opened ended extension of time to respond to the Complaint until after the decision

was rendered. That the Court there denied Plaintiff’s request to supplement the

complaint with new evidence and transactions that have occurred subsequent to the



August 22, 2011 hearing e.g. that the NYS BOE admits to continued use of “Born a

Citizen” 14th amendment citizenship eligibility to seek office of POTUS rather than

that required by U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 “natural-born

citizen” status as instruction to any person seeking ballot access in the New York 2012

Presidential election cycle and despite the New York State Assistant Attorney General

Joel Graber’s refusal of Plaintiff’s tender offer to settle in front of Defendants’ Counsels

there to hear the offer to settle the case specifically “were the NYS BOE to change the

website instruction from ‘Born a Citizen’ back to ‘Natural-born citizen” Plaintiff would

then merely only seek expense reimbursement ..” was rejected by the State thereby

binding Plaintiff and other Defendants to further action.

54. Plaintiff contends as to the behavior of the Court that based upon The Republic

by Plato Translated by Benjamin Jowett in Book 2 in regards to Plato’s comparison of

Physicians and Judges in that one cares for the constitution of the body and the other

the constitution of the mind and spirit states:

But with the judge it is otherwise; since he governs mind by mind; he ought not therefore to have been trained among vicious minds, and to have associated with them from youth upwards, and to have gone through the whole calendar of crime, only in order that he may quickly infer the crimes of others as he might their bodily diseases from his own self-consciousness; the honourable mind which is to form a healthy judgment should have had no experience or contamination of evil habits when young. And this is the reason why in youth good men often appear to be simple, and are easily practised upon by the dishonest, because they have no examples of what evil is in their own souls. Yes, he said, they are far too apt to be deceived. Therefore, I said, the judge should not be young; he should have learned to know evil, not from his own soul, but from late and long observation of the nature of evil in others: knowledge should be his guide, not personal experience. Yes, he said, that is the ideal of a judge.


Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1

CONCLUSION IN FAVOR OF RECONSIDERATION

That Plaintiff wishes that the Court reconsider the decision and hear the

settlement offer offered the State that as a result of admissions of prior acts and

transactions that have occurred after the filing of the Complaint back on March 22,

20 11, and since the tender offer by Plaintiff on October 25, 201 1 to settle in the

presence of Defendants counsels for the State to change the instruction from "Born a

Citizen" to "Natural-born Citizen" was rejected and imposes unnecessary costs and

expense upon all concerned, and that the additional transactions and evidence

presented by Plaintiff must be entered into the record for the purpose of appeal were

the Court to deny reasonable settlement, and for further and different relief as the

Court may deem necessary herein; and that Plaintiff contends the foregoing applies to

the State's agents misapplication and administration of laws and duties that have

facilitated Defendants action with impunity that has inflicted individual injury upon

me specifically, and know the contents thereof apply to me as the same is true to my

own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information

and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as

to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3d parties, books

and records, and personal knowledge.

Sworn to before me This S h a y of May 20 12

KAMAL I? SON1 , . . ,. Notary &lic

V Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 SO6089949

Qualified in Kings County Commission Ex>ires March 31,2015

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC of 27

IREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK IUNTY OF KINGS Index No.: 6500-2011 .------------------------------------------------------------- X

,hristopher-Earl: Strunk in esse,

Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

-against-

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al.,

Defendants. ------------------------------------------------- X

STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.

COUNTY OF KINGS 1

Accordingly,I, ~ / u L / A + &MW.Y$ZUbeing duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of pe jury:

a. Am over 18 years of age and not a p b. My place of business is located a t c. On April May 3, 2012, Christopher

PLAINTIFF'S AFFDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS AND COURT COSTS SHOULD NOT BE L E W D RATHER THAN SETTLE affirmed MAY 3,2012 for the case Strunk v NYS BOE et al. NYS County of Kings Supreme Court with index 6500-20 11, by USPS service upon Defendants' Counsels.

d. On May 3, 2012, I caused each copy with proper postage for service by regular mail of listed counsels and where each envelope was deposited with the USPS for service upon:

Erica Burke, Esq. of SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10017-3954

RITA C. TOBIN, Esq. of CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED 375 Park Avenue 35th Floor New York. New York 10152-3500

HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553

JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099

MARSHAL BELL, Esq. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 10 105

WILEY REM LLP - TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ., JAN WITHOLD BARAN ESQ. and THOMAS W. KIRBY ESQ. 1776K Street, NW Washington D.C. 20006

RABMOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, PC - Christopher J. Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10006-3791

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of NYS by: JOEL GRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorney General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADWAY - 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332

MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New Y o r , w w York 10007

before me tJ1 d day of April 20 12

Q ABRAHAM HELFENBAUM Commissioner of Deeds

City Of New York No. 2-9363 Certificate Filed in Kings C ,u t Comrnisslon ~xpirss July ; o o g

strunk aff response to 4-11-12 decision and osc nyssc index 6500-2011

Documents

wong kim ark

marcus antonius

children naturally

de facto born

exercise political

civil rights

arius calpurnius

york state